Volatility

June 17, 2018

The Billion Dollar Bug, Indeed

>

 
 
“That which the borer has left, the earworm has eaten; and that which the earworm has left, the rootworm has eaten…”
 
The treadmill of planned obsolescence continues. The goal, as proven by the corporate state’s pattern of action, is to cause insect resistance to pesticides to evolve ever faster, to provide a rationale for the ever faster development of ever more complex GMO/pesticide packages. The real purpose of this technological deployment, beyond mundane profit motives, is control, war, and the total destruction of the ecology.
 
All prior anti-rootworm Bt GMOs are admitted failures. Rootworm now resists them all. Monsanto’s “SmartStax Pro” AKA “Corn Rootworm III” (MON 87411), currently in development, is the next GMO “solution” being touted for rootworm control. SS Pro is being developed with the RNA interference mode. RNAi is simply a more aggressive gene driving attack on the ecology than the regular GM contamination already driving its toxic genetics.* As for pest control, this is the exact same product as prior insecticidal GMOs and will fail just as quickly in the exact same way.
 
The piece GMWatch links, a pro-poison outlet, admits that all GMOs are a failure and that farmers have to spray just as much as before, as well as rotate crops and observe insects in the field (what radical ideas, those last two). A neutral observer might think they should admit that the pesticide paradigm is a proven failure. A neutral observer might think they have an ulterior motive for continuing to shill for pesticides even as they admit pesticides don’t work. Rootworm is indeed a “billion dollar bug” for Monsanto, Syngenta, and Dow.
 
Today most Bt GM seed in the US is sold in the form of a “refuge in a bag” (RIB). This means that non-GM seed is scattered in among the bulk of GM seed. RIB abrogates the entire notion of non-Bt “refuges”, which already were a propaganda scam in the first place.** The fact that the EPA lowered the percentage requirement from 20% for discrete “structured” refuges (entomologists originally insisted that at least 50% was necessary, but were bought off at 20%) to 5% for the diffused “RIB” shows their twisted sense of humor. To make the joke complete, they should have lowered the RIB to 0%. It would be just as effective. This is further proof that the pesticide arms race is an intentionally escalating planned failure.
 
 
*All GMOs have unstable genomes riddled with mutations, and almost all are driven by the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter which has a recombination hot-spot. For both of these reasons GMOs are more likely to be vectors of horizontal gene transfer than natural plants and are more aggressive in this transfer, forcing their alien genetics into any available place including the genomes of animals that eat them. Therefore every GMO is inherently a gene drive agent and seeks to force its brutish promoter-amplified alien nucleic acids into every possible organism: Related plants and plant-eating animals. Every GMO is a cancer agent in a precise sense, just as each is a cancer cell from the perspective of the ecosystem as a whole. GMOs are cancer amid the ecosystem, and they seek to sow cancer within individual animals. In this way they work to weaken animal populations from below, while gross ecocide exterminates them from above.
 
**The pesticide treadmill of planned, deliberate obsolescence gives the lie to the whole notion of “refugia”, which are stands of non-Bt corn which the EPA and similar regulators in other countries require poison farmers to set aside. The idea is supposed to be that the non-Bt stand provides a “refuge” for insects without innate resistance to survive and interbreed with the naturally resistant ones who have survived feeding on the Bt crop. Their offspring will be less likely to inherit the resistance trait, and therefore the overall conversion of the pest population to a resistant variety is supposed to be delayed.
 
As we see, the theoretical setting aside of refuges has done little to halt the march of Bt-resistant rootworms and other resistant insects. Refuges were really a political scam in the first place. Neither the EPA nor regulators in other countries enforce them, nor were refuges ever supposed to be enforced. The idea of the refuge, as a way for regulators and corporations to reassure skeptics that the product will work, always had more significance then the real world application.
 
This is proven by the fact that, in the same way that regulators set allowable pesticide levels in water and food, not according to public health or any other scientific measure, but simply according to whatever level will result from the amount of pesticides corporations need to sell and farmers are driven to spray, so the refuge percentages aren’t set according to any scientific measure, but according to the lowest politically justifiable level.
 
Therefore although USDA entomologists recommended 50% refuge planting if the policy was supposed to have any chance of being effective, the EPA originally set the requirement at 20% for single and then double trait Bt poison crops. Needless to say Monsanto originally opposed the refuge concept as such and has always lobbied for the lowest possible level. The EPA was happy to accept the cartel’s argument that stacked varieties, by incorporating multiple poisons, would attack target insects so many ways at once that the 20% refuge was no longer necessary and could be reduced to 5%. This “reduced refuge” requirement was inaugurated with SmartStax corn in 2009, and we have indeed seen rapid results where it’s come to the evolution of rootworm resistance. RIB has further accelerated the arms race.
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements

April 8, 2018

Forest or Desert

>

 
 
A forest is a fountain of life. It comprises many wheels of dynamism from tree to air to soil bacteria to jaguar to orchid to frog to humus to butterfly to vine to water to parrot to mushroom to fish to tree. The forest is home and nest for the incalculable harmony of all the plants and melody of all the animals. It embodies the uncanny, endless multitudes of trees. The rain forest generates its own great cycle of water, raising an immensity of water from the soils to embody itself and transpire this immensity, so ponderous it must form immediate clouds and hurl itself back down as monumental rains which fill the soils for the trees to raise once again.
 
One of the wheels is the food cycle, from bacteria to nematode and worm to insect to frog and bird to ocelot; from humus and fungus to grass and fruiting vine to deer and monkey and macaw. One of the key transformations (though they’re all key) is animals eating plants.
 
One of the many symbioses animals depend upon is the survival in the digestive tract of plant nucleic acids and the passage of these genetic materials through the bloodstream and cell wall and into the animal’s genome, where they assist the animal’s innate genetic dynamism. The animals of an ecosystem have evolved over millions of years to assimilate the beneficial symbiotic plant material and reject whatever wouldn’t help. This is inherent to evolution’s finely tuned cuisine, part of the choreography of the greater ecosystem.
 
All GMOs have unstable genomes riddled with mutations, and almost all are driven by the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter which has a recombination hot-spot. For both of these reasons GMOs are more likely to be vectors of horizontal gene transfer than natural plants, and are more aggressive in this transfer, forcing their alien genetics into any available place including the genomes of animals that eat them. Therefore every GMO is inherently a gene drive agent and seeks to force its brutish promoter-amplified alien nucleic acids into every possible organism: Related plants and plant-eating animals. Every GMO is a cancer agent in a precise sense, just as each is a cancer cell from the perspective of the ecosystem as a whole. GMOs are cancer amid the ecosystem, and they seek to sow cancer within individual animals. In this way they work to weaken animal populations from below.
 
Infinitely more violent, industrial agriculture and logging directly destroy the forest. (GMOs are designed to escalate every drive of industrial agriculture and therefore are designed to drive deforestation.) The goal is to eradicate the forest completely. This can be as little as decimating it past the breaking point where it no longer can convey enough water to generate its own clouds and rain. Beyond this breaking point, which in many cases is as low as 50% or less of the original forested range, the forest withers completely. The already cancer-undermined animal populations succumb, even prior to the complete replacement of forest by desert.
 
Even more than the extinction of species, this extinction population by population is the main vector and measure of the Sixth Great Extinction in Earth’s history. This sixth extinction event is the special project of modern civilization, its core religious goal to accompany its great imperative to release all the stored sunlight of billions of years in just a few years, driving climatic heating and chaos as radically as possible. These are the great works of our time, the work to which all of civilization has dedicated itself.
 
Total desert is the goal. The big industries directly generate it through the direct violent destruction of trees and animals. Biotech escalates industrial agriculture from above and works insidiously on plant and animal genetics from below. The eco-genocide campaign is simultaneously mass shooting and sowing cancer among the people.
 
This is the death project of civilization, with scientism its guiding religion, technocracy its cultural/political mode of organization, productionism and the useless destruction of what’s produced its fundamental action. Biotech and other high-maintenance technology suites are the modes of weaponry.
 
 
 
 
 

February 6, 2018

Technocracy’s Pro-Cancer Campaign: IARC Example

>

 
 
The poison cartel, led by Monsanto, is stepping up its assault on the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency IARC.* The assault on IARC is symbolic of the corporate technocracy’s ideological view of cancer. On the most mundane level corporate profits depend heavily on disseminating poisons which cause cancer. This is the main cause of the modern cancer epidemic. And then corporate technocracy itself depends on the economic system dedicated to infinite “growth”, which means it directly replicates biological cancer. These people are cancer.
 
Going beyond the most proximate goals of profit, the technocrats and scientism cultists want to maximize cancer as part of their experimental program and their eugenics program. All their actions prove this. Do they do it out of sheer evil greed? Certainly there’s plenty of this, but few even among the most sociopathic can thrive on such cynical nihilism. People need to believe in what they’re doing. That’s one point where the scientism religion comes to the aid of the experimentalists. Scientism still implies its 19th century tenet that there’s no such thing as the “normal” (healthy) and “abnormal” (unhealthy) state of an organism, only the sheer processes it goes through.** From there it becomes easy to justify science as the handmaiden of engineering manipulation and control, for their own sakes and for the sake of developing technologies to enhance the wealth and power of status quo elites. From there the full ramification of the corporate science paradigm follows. The Gates Foundation, like the Rockefeller Foundation and others before it, is dedicated to coordinating the most mundane toxic greed with the most exalted religious fantasies.
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-poison, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework. Instead it emphasizes environmental factors in cancer causation:
 
“Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.”
 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant science ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and/or “bad luck”, with the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist “cures” supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This is why the corporate scientific establishment, regulators like the EPA and EFSA, and the corporate media all despise the IARC. And this is why Reuters has embarked on a vendetta against the agency.
 
I often ponder the irony that even among “decent” people the great heroic metaphor is “curing cancer”, while someone like me who has dedicated my life to preventing cancer is beyond the pale. That’s because even the good people do demand their worthless expensive destructive junk, and the basic template applies not just to corporate-controlled institutions but to everyone. Even cancer must be dealt with only within the framework which exalts productionism, consumerism, technocracy, corporate rule as normal and normative. Even efforts against cancer must never hinder this imperative. Among the people of the system, its supporters and its tacit followers, there is consensus on this.
 
 
**As an ideological proposition, the notion that laboratory-generated artifices are not qualitatively different from the products of evolution goes back to 19th century German physiology. Among such physiologists as Carl Ludwig and Hermann Helmholtz there was a general neglect of Darwinism and a consensus that evolution is irrelevant. They tended to take the organism as given and focus on its current state. At first physiologists posited a binary state of normality/health vs. pathology. Where a condition was seen as pathological, the goal was to learn how to manipulate in order to restore the organism to its “normal”, healthy condition. So physiologists would naturally tend toward seeking control since they undertook their work within the framework of this normal-pathological binary, with the focus being on pathology and the goal being to change this to the opposite state. This laid the groundwork for subsequent ideological development.
 
The lust for control above all other things loomed ever larger. Starting in the 1870s such practitioners as plant physiologist Julius Sachs, his student Jacques Loeb, and Justus Gaule rejected the normality/pathology binary and increasingly focused on physiological manipulation as such, without regard to whether it was in the direction of the organism’s better or worse health. Bolstered by the instrumental science philosophy of Ernst Mach and the techno-evangelism of Mach’s close associate Josef Popper-Lynkeus, researchers within this framework relinquished any concern for whether or not scientific research or technological development produced humanly beneficial results. Technological control and manipulation as such was religiously assumed to be its own self-caused primary value, with all other values subordinate to it. These researchers added to their contempt for evolution the attitude that since health vs. sickness, comfort vs. pain, normality vs. pathology were meaningless distinctions, so it followed that natural evolution vs. technologically accomplished laboratory manipulation was also a meaningless distinction.
 
Although today few practitioners openly phrase it this way, this rejection of evolution and any kind of concern for the well-being of living things remains the ideological bedrock of technocracy. The establishment ideology of cancer, epitomized in its current drive to eradicate the IARC, is a clear example of this.
 
Technocracy and the modern science paradigm do not regard cancer as an undesirable or abnormal condition in the first place. This system wishes to cause cancer in order to study it toward using it for purposes of control. For the scientism cult this is an ideological commitment prior even to corporate profit.
 
 
Propagate the necessary new ideas.
 
 
 
 
 

January 11, 2018

“Heal the World” is Nothing But Camouflage for Eugenics

>

They do like the word “medical”

 
 
British environmental secretary Michael Gove publicly calls for animal eugenics. This is often disguised by rhetorically masking the straight eugenic aspirations with alleged “medical” applications. In Gove’s case he’s explicit about the eugenics as well:
 
“Gene editing technology could help us to remove vulnerabilities to illness, develop higher yielding crops or more valuable livestock…Food in abundance, improved health, greater longevity.”
 
We see in just a few words: The “Feed the World” big lie, its companion “Heal the World” lie, and the intrinsic affinity of supposed medical goals of high-maintenance technology with the most far-reaching eugenic goals. Animal eugenics is a midpoint in technocracy’s plan to move from the deployment of agricultural GMOs to genetically modifying animals for “medical” and eugenic purposes (technocracy never pretends to recognize a dividing line here) to alleged medical treatments for humans based on genetic modification to a full-scale campaign of human eugenics based on genetic engineering. These comprise a seamless continuum.
 
But many critics of agricultural GMOs on the one hand and eugenics on the other nevertheless think you can mix and match parts of this unitary plan.
 
“The backlash to Mr Gove’s speech continued with campaign group GM Watch accusing him of ‘disingenuously’ mixing medical applications of genome editing for curing diseases with editing of animals.”
 
Lukewarm outfits like GMWatch think you can separate the alleged “medical applications” of technocracy from eugenics. But history proves this is impossible, and the engineers themselves often have admitted that the propaganda of the former is just a stalking horse for the latter.
 
“Heal the World” is the exact same lie, in the exact same form, as “Feed the World”. Just as with food, we already have sufficient medical knowledge and production. The only problem is lack of access to health care because people lack money and have lost the skills to tend to their own health. Here in America, single payer would do infinitely more good for human health and well-being than billions more $ spent on hi-tech treatments which even if they worked could benefit only a handful. The Goves of the world are abetted by general adherence, even on the part of most spot critics of things like GMOs*, to the technocratic ideology which believes humanity needs extremely expensive high-maintenance technology for everything. It’s bizarre to see those who oppose agricultural GMOs turn around and support the scam of “medical” GM even though it’s based on all the same lies and the same pernicious ideology.
 
[*This is one of several indications that most “anti-GMO” people are similar to what the pro-GMO activists say about them, that they’re motivated not by any coherent philosophical principle but by a flukish emotional reaction. The best evidence of this is how the movement always has had a strong tendency to remain within the bounds of consumerism and has been “political” only within those bounds. Just Label It had to do relatively little gatekeeping.]
 
“Heal the World” is part of the ideology that medicine isn’t supposed to prevent illness and promote health, but rather is supposed to wait for illness to happen (which fits perfectly with the agrochemical agenda) and then “cure” or “manage” it in the most expensive, high-maintenance technological way possible. Indeed when we recognize the promiscuous deployment of GMOs in the environment and food as a massive uncontrolled feeding and exposure experiment, we must go further and conclude that the scientific establishment actively is seeking to cause epidemics of cancer, birth defects, autoimmune diseases, and other maladies in order to gather data toward its projected future controlled eugenics experiments.
 
At the core of scientism ideology remains the belief that there’s really no such thing as “health” vs. “ill-health”, and that cancer is just a different state of an organism, not “worse” than lack of cancer. This article of faith hasn’t recently been so explicit as it was in the 19th century, but it remains one of the fundamentals of the scientism-technocracy cult.
 
The faith of the lukewarm GMO critics that one element of the genetic engineering crusade, alleged medical treatments, can be removed from its ideological and institutional context (we see how the anti-GMO people themselves tend to be the same mirror-image reductionists as the pro-GM activists) and serve as a constructive part of a medical system still based on managing disease dovetails well with their worship of regulators. Technocratic regulatory agencies also want to “manage” the deployment of poisons and the amount of human cancer and ecological destruction these cause instead of preventing all this in the first place. With this affinity, faith in the technocratic medical model and faith in the technocratic regulatory model, in both cases faith in the model of managing poisons rather than abolishing them, we see what’s fundamentally a statist religion. This explains the limits of most anti-GMO/pesticide thought and action so far, and why it seems impossible even to get small abolitionist propagation organizations going.
 
 
Meanwhile we must take our health into our own hands. The corporate-technocratic system based on extreme energy consumption and extreme assaults on the environment soon will collapse from the unsustainability of both of these campaigns. The system also is economically liquidating the people, so even if medical treatments based on high-maintenance technology and high-energy consumption were physically sustainable, the vast majority of us are or soon will be financially excluded from these.
 
What can we small mammals do for our health while dodging the dinosaurs?
 
1. Any of us could take our health into our own hands to a large extent with some affirmative and preventative education and effort. Eating wholesome food, living a physically active lifestyle (sedentarism combined with going to the gym is a poor substitute at best), renouncing the artificial stress inherent to the consumption-based lifestyle, knowledgeable use of medicinal herbs for prevention and treatment, use of other alternative and traditional medicine, are key elements of tending to our own health and well-being and that of our communities. (This dovetails with the necessary work to abolish the most health-destructive industrial projects, none of which are necessary for any aspect of human well-being, all of which are 100% destructive of it.)
 
2. Much of the treatment necessary we also can do for ourselves and one another, where necessary in tandem with the basics of modern medicine where these are still available.
 
3. These basics include basic sanitation, regular doctor practices, low-tech medicines, etc. To say again, all these easily and inexpensively could be arranged with a single payer system, or by restoring the original fee-for-service patient-doctor relationship. That’s just a reminder that to the extent one remains politically active as a would-be reformer, here too the real solutions are always basic and low-tech.
 
4. By contrast, the truly expensive, “hi-tech” treatments become necessary only in a small number of cases, and mostly for conditions that could have been prevented in the first place. For example, the need for ever more high-maintenance antibiotics and vaccines is driven by the corporate system’s deliberate creation of pathogens resistant to these. The whole notion that health care needs to be expensive, bureaucratic, controlled by any kind of insurance model, is the hi-tech tail wagging the social dog. But this is for the benefit of Wall Street, agribusiness, Big Drug, biotech, the health insurance racket, and government control over the people. It’s for the aggrandizement of technocracy as such.
 
 
While the eradication of disease will never be possible, if we use all we’ve learned of basic public health principles, the nutritional and medicinal uses of food and herbs, and and if we put a stop to those poisoning our environment, we certainly can greatly minimize it.
 
All the good and necessary measures are low-energy, low-tech. These also will be the only possible measures going forward. The lie of “healing the world” with high energy high-maintenance technology like gene editing is nothing but smoke covering technocracy’s control and domination agenda. Needless to say, eugenics for animal agriculture is the same as GM crops in having no constructive use and no future.
 
 
Propagate the necessary new ideas.
 
 
 
 
 

December 14, 2017

Cancer Notes

<

 
 
The US cancer-industrial complex has the same ideology as that of government regulators: It’s a combination of direct corporate corruption and the ideology of “managing” a certain level of cancer “risk” and “tolerance”. This adds up to a complete focus on detection and treatment, the latter having to be done on a corporate profiteering basis. (This latter emphasis is also a combination of corruption and ideology.) Studying the environmental causes of cancer and working for prevention (as the World Health Organization’s IARC does*) is ruled out as unscience and unpolicy. This is the cancer branch of the corporate science paradigm. Only alleged genetic causality can be researched, and only gene therapy would constitute acceptable prevention policy. The only place where there’s any controversy within the system is over some aspects of detection, for example mammograms.
 
The few exceptions to this, such as with cigarettes and lung cancer, were forced upon the system by grassroots movements. Acknowledging what the system long knew, that smoking causes cancer in the smoker, didn’t threaten the paradigm as much because it’s easy to place all the blame on the smoker for his own cancer. By contrast, second-hand smoke has been more fraught (and Big Tobacco deniers like Henry Miller are still active to this day) because that’s an environmental cause.
 
This war has a strange religious element. Corporate cancer researchers have explicitly named “bad luck” as a significant cause of cancer. This isn’t a scientific concept but a pathetic attempt to fill the void which even the gross embellishment of the evidence for some genetic causality hasn’t been able to fill. The anti-scientific and pro-cancer goal is to deny the environmental causality at all costs. (The “bad luck” thesis was quickly debunked by a study done according to the classical falsificationist scientific method.)
 
It’s religiously weird, though, in that religious preachers usually want to give people explanations for pressing things which they can’t explain on their own. Today’s corporate scientism tries to do this with the ideology of biological determinism. It’s junk science, but for those willing to believe the lies it could possibly fulfill that religious need. Genetic deterministic theories of cancer would fit in here.
 
So it’s significant that, as committed as corporate science is to finding genetic causes for almost all cancer, it nevertheless has failed so badly even on its own terms that it’s had to resort to such a transparent admission of bankruptcy as enshrining “bad luck” as the state of its science. Of course bad luck doesn’t explain anything to anyone, so it’s not only laughably bad science, but bad religion as well.
 
I’m a real anti-cancer researcher and I get paid nothing. There’s lots of fake cancer researchers who get paid millions.
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-poison, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation:
 
“Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.”
 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant science ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and/or “bad luck” and the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist “cures” supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This is why the corporate scientific establishment, regulators like the EPA and EFSA, and the corporate media all despise the IARC. And this is why Reuters has embarked on a vendetta against the agency.
 
I often ponder the irony that even among “decent” people the great heroic metaphor is “curing cancer”, while someone like me who has dedicated my life to preventing cancer is beyond the pale. That’s because even the good people do demand their worthless expensive destructive junk, and the basic template applies not just to corporate-controlled institutions but to everyone. Even cancer must be dealt with only within the framework which exalts productionism, consumerism, technocracy, corporate rule as normal and normative. Even efforts against cancer must never hinder this imperative. Among the people of the system, its supporters and its tacit followers, there is consensus on this.
 
 
 
 

October 26, 2017

Train in Vain, If That’s Your Only Mode

>

 
 
Reuters continues its Monsanto-instigated campaign of slander against the World Health Organization’s cancer research agency IARC.*
 
1. This study is a lie, as has been proven by the history of herbicides. Even the USDA admitted, even before Roundup Ready crops were commercialized, that these poison plants wouldn’t reduce farming costs but only make it easier to manage greater acreage. Herbicide tolerant GMOs were designed to destroy jobs and accelerate farm consolidation. But the costs never were intended to be lessened, only shifted from labor wages to corporate inputs.
 
2. Even if it did “cost” people more when they’re in the mode of being train passengers to have workers mow and otherwise tend the rail lines, this would then be money those workers would spend as consumers, thereby increasing the velocity of money and rendering the economy more healthy to everyone, including those same “train passengers” insofar as they are also workers, consumers, citizens.
 
This propaganda campaign (the fake “study” and the fake “news article”) is a typical example of media dissemination of corporate austerity ideology, austerity lies. It’s designed to strangle all thought in order to strangle all attempts to free the economy and particularly the food supply from the corporate death grip.
 
But if the train passengers reading it believe the lies and see themselves as living on an island of pure passenger-dom, they’ll find out soon enough that there is no island. Like it or not they’re subject to the forces of the economy far beyond what they pay for train tickets, and in all those ways the bell tolls for them too, not just for people with mowing jobs. Pretty soon they won’t have to worry about the price of a train ticket, since they won’t be able to afford it at any price. That’s what corporate austerity, as propagated by media campaigns like this, has in store for them.
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-poison, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation:
 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant science ideology which views cancer as arising from genetic determinism and/or “bad luck” and the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist “cures” supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
 
For example, the fraudulent depiction of oxidative stress as having only “random” effects is typical of corporate science. By contrast, the WHO’s IARC considers oxidative stress to be one of the environmental factors causing cancer and applies this to its assessments of pesticides and other cancer agents. There we see one methodological divide between real science and fake corporate science. This is why the corporate scientific establishment, regulators like the EPA and EFSA, and the corporate media all despise the IARC. And this is why Reuters has embarked upon a vendetta against the agency.
 
I often ponder the irony that even among “decent” people the great heroic metaphor is “curing cancer”, while someone like me who has dedicated my life to preventing cancer is beyond the pale. That’s because even your good people do demand their worthless expensive destructive junk, and the basic template applies not just to corporate-controlled institutions but to everyone. Even cancer must be dealt with only within the framework which exalts productionism, consumerism, technocracy, corporate rule as normal and normative. Even efforts against cancer must never hinder this imperative. Among the people of the system, its supporters and its tacit followers, there is consensus on this.
 
 
 

June 10, 2017

Your EPA in Action

>

 
 
It’s been common knowledge for years that the EPA knew at least since the early 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer, and has been helping Monsanto cover up this fact ever since. Glyphosate doesn’t work in practice, and the brain-dead cult of it is driven only by profit and power.
 
The flood of cancer lawsuits now ongoing against Monsanto is providing more information about the EPA’s pattern of crime. In one of the suits the plaintiffs’ experts are reviewing one of Monsanto’s own original studies which found evidence of glyphosate’s cancerousness.
 
This 1983 study, entitled “A Chronic Feeding Study of Glyphosate (Roundup Technical) in Mice”, was conclusive enough that in 1984 EPA toxicologist William Dykstra wrote in a memo: “glyphosate is oncogenic…in a dose-related manner.” Other EPA scientists concurred over the next year. In 1985 they officially signed a consensus review classifying glyphosate as Category C, “possibly carconogenic to humans.”
 
In response, Monsanto cadre George Levinskas, the company’s cover-up artist who previously led the campaign to lie about the devastation wrought by PCBs, suborned doctor and academic Marvin Kuschner to whitewash the evidence. Levinskas assured colleagues that Kuschner’s testimony was in the bag even before Kuschner actually looked at the slides. Sure enough, Kuschner claimed to find a tumor in the control group which previous researchers, including Monsanto’s own, had not located.
 
At the same time as this alleged control group tumor was being “discovered”, Monsanto sent the EPA a secret report which blamed the tumors found among the experimental group on how the study allegedly used “aged mice”. Why, praytell, would a scientific toxicology study use “aged” experimental subjects such that tumor evidence, if found, would be overdetermined? Precisely for that reason – so that in the event of experimental trouble Monsanto could dismiss the evidence as caused by the age of the subjects. In other words, this is Monsanto openly admitting that its study was a deliberately designed to be a fraud, because they intentionally used experimental subjects which could not provide legitimate scientific evidence. In legitimate science, of course, the goal of experimental design is to isolate the experimental variable(s) and control for every other variable. Legitimate researchers therefore select their experimental subjects in order to prevent any overdetermination of the results. In a cancer study, the subjects would be selected from the demographic which has the least actuarial incidence of cancer. But if you select older mice who are statistically more prone to tumors in general, you’re intentionally designing a fraudulent study. Here we have Monsanto openly avowing that it perpetrated such a fraud, and claiming that therefore the evidence of its own study should be dismissed.
 
Any society which respected science would drive them out with a whip. But we see how things function in a system of establishment science dedicated to the corporate science paradigm.
 
Monsanto also bombarded the EPA with “historical control data”, a standard methodological fraud. Standard in industry tests, this tactic is designed to generate irrelevant noise in order to drown out any toxicity or cancer signal which does arise.
 
 
These Monsanto lies gave the EPA enough of a pretext to reclassify glyphosate into Category D – “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.” But they still asked Monsanto to repeat the study, which Monsanto refused to do, thus implicitly validating the original results. In other words, Monsanto believed that even with all its chicanery and fraud, a new study would still produce evidence that glyphosate causes cancer. If the company didn’t think that, it would happily perform the study. The same goes for the fact that the GMO corporations have absolutely refused ever to perform a single safety study upon any GMO. This proves that the corporations and governments believe that such studies would produce evidence of the health harms of GMOs.
 
In 1989 the EPA dropped its request for a new study. The EPA was warming up to its whitewashing role. In 1991 the agency finally performed a complete inversion, dubbing glyphosate Category E – “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans” – a bald-faced lie.
 
The EPA has held fast to this pro-glyphosate line ever since, reaffirming it most recently in 2013.
 
Meanwhile the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), one of the few public bodies dedicated to legitimate science*, has deemed this same study, along with a 1981 study finding evidence that glyphosate causes testicular cancer in rats, as evidence that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen”.
 
 
Since at least the early 1980s Monsanto and the EPA have known that glyphosate causes cancer. Every US president, agriculture secretary, and other government officials also have known this at least since then. All of them have systematically covered up this fact ever since. They are all complicit in mass murder by poisoning. This is indelibly what the EPA and other regulatory agencies are, just as it’s indelibly what the Corporate One-Party is, regardless of its fake “Democrat” and “Republican” groups. There is no path forward for humanity with these criminal organizations. The regulatory agencies are dedicated in principle to “managing” the infliction of deadly poisons upon the people, and in principle are supposed to keep the number of deaths and injuries at a politically tolerable level, thus the regulatory concept of “tolerances”. But in practice they make no attempt even to manage the death toll, but strive to maximize the use of every kind of deadly agricultural poison. This is indelibly what they are.
 
There is no path forward for humanity in seeking to “co-exist” with these poisons and poisoners. The only solution is total abolition. Therefore there is no path forward in trying to “reform” these indelibly poisonist agencies. They too must be abolished along with the vile poisons they inflict upon us.
 
 
 
*Although the WHO as a whole has been consistently pro-Monsanto, the IARC is out of step with the dominant corporate/reductionist ideological framework, instead emphasizing environmental factors in cancer causation.
 

Emphasis is placed on elucidating the role of environmental and lifestyle risk factors and studying their interplay with genetic background in population-based studies and appropriate experimental models. This emphasis reflects the understanding that most cancers are, directly or indirectly, linked to environmental factors and thus are preventable.

 
The proposition that cancer is preventable runs directly counter to the dominant “science” ideology which dogmatically views cancer as arising either from genetic determinism or “bad luck”, and which considers the only acceptable response to be massively expensive and interventionist cures supervised by Big Drug and other corporate sectors. This ideology is driven by the need of the poison-peddling corporations to obscure and deny the fact that profitable products like glyphosate are in fact major cancer drivers. The corporate flacks are abetted by scientism’s religious zealots who refuse to hear any evil spoken of their technological rabbits’ feet.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 
 

June 5, 2017

The Regulator/Corporate Interest vs. the People’s Interest

>

 
 
The Greens/EFA faction of the European Parliament is suing the EFSA because the agency refuses to release secret documents from its 2015 glyphosate review. The EFSA always has proclaimed openly that it depends upon secret documents it is fed by the corporations. In other words, the regulator openly admits that it uses no science in its reviews, but only corporate innuendo. This is in complete contrast to the WHO’s IARC cancer research agency, whose guidelines require it to use only published studies. The IARC requires itself to stay within the bounds of legitimate science, while the EFSA and EPA explicitly disavow science and stay within the bounds of secret corporate decrees.
 
Under public pressure the EFSA did release a fragmentary, heavily redacted version of the corporate materials, and did find collaborators willing to provide political cover for this fraudulent “disclosure”. The EFSA now says no public interest would be served by full disclosure. In addition to being an explicit abdication of the canons of science, which by definition requires public perusal, this is the EFSA’s open admission that it does not view itself as acting in the public interest, since it explicitly avows that the public interest, at best, must be limited by the corporate interest. The Greens/EFA statement partially endorses this, agreeing that there’s a “balance that should be struck.” We abolitionists of course recognize no such fraudulent “balance”, but will never settle for anything less than the full public interest and the full publicity of anything claiming to represent “science”.
 
 
Once again we have the standard state of things:
 
1. The myth of the public interest regulator.
 
2. The reality of the regulator controlled by the corporation and ideologically committed to serving the corporation.
 
3. The regulator lies, claiming to be trying to “strike a balance”. This already partially abrogates the myth of the public interest. In reality, the regulator recognizes no public interest at all, except insofar as this may trickle down from corporate domination.
 
4. “Reformers” have already surrendered that far, and they abet that extent of the lie. So we can assume that over time they’ll continue to surrender ground and abet further lies as the corporate assault advances.
 
 
As the piece points out, the EFSA could, if it really were under legal constraint with regard to publicizing its alleged data, ask the court to order it to publish the data. But of course no regulator would ever make such a request, because they lie about being under such constraint. No regulator ever has its hands tied by intellectual property law. On the contrary, they ardently, actively, ideologically support the poisoner project and all its elements. This includes the “secret science” the regulators require in order to perform their sham reviews.
 
 
As I’ve written many times before, this strong regulator bias on behalf of the corporations and against the public good and against science does not arise primarily from superficial venal corruption. It arises from a far more profound existential corruption, a corruption of all canons of human morality and reason. While de jure corruption is common, it’s epiphenomenal compared to the overall ideological and methodological framework of technocracy and the corporate science paradigm. Cadres of an agency like the EFSA or ECHA, or the US EPA, FDA, and USDA, operate according to the corporate/technocratic template. Its three components are:
 
1. The corporate power/profit project is normative. It is the primary purpose of civilization. Under no circumstance can any other value or alternative project be allowed significantly to hinder the corporate project.
 
This has profound implications for actions like a pesticide cancer review. For technocratic regulators to acknowledge the fact that all synthetic pesticides cause widespread cancer would significantly hinder the corporate project. Therefore even the prospect of such acknowledgement is ruled out a priori. By definition it cannot be part of the review. Only the most grossly excessive and obvious cancerousness on the part of a particular chemical could be acknowledged even in principle. When outfits like the US EPA or the EU’s EFSA claim to believe that glyphosate is not cancerous, this is not according to any rational or scientific canon of evidence, and reformers who interpret it this way make a mistake about the fundamental character of these organizations.
 
Rather, technocratic regulators apply the canon of the corporate paradigm. According to this canon “causes cancer” is defined as: “So grossly carcinogenic that it’s politically impossible to deny it, to the point that lack of action would in itself be significantly bad for business.” For the government, just as much as for the corporation, cancer is purely political.
 
This leads to the template’s second component.
 
2. Given the strictures of (1), the regulator may if absolutely necessary impose limits on the most excessive harms and worst abuses. More often, it only pretends to do even this. Which leads to the template’s third component.
 
3. The regulator then puts its imprimatur on the corporate project as having been sufficiently regulated for safety. According to the ideology of technocracy and bureaucracy, the people are supposed to believe implicitly in the competence, rigor, and honesty of the regulator. They’re supposed to believe this for all measures of safety, public and environmental health, political and socioeconomic benefit and lack of harm.
 
All this is based on a Big Lie, since as we described above the regulator actually functions only according to the normative values of corporate power. But it fraudulently claims, always implicitly and very often explicitly, that it has acted on behalf of human values and to protect and serve the people. Therefore, the ideology goes, the people should repose implicit trust in the regulator rather than assert themselves democratically in any kind of grassroots way. Most of all, the people must not start to think in any political terms which would be based on fundamentally different values and goals, values and goals opposed to those of corporate rule and technocracy.
 
Thus we see how technocracy is an ideology, method, and form of government which is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-political as such since it is dedicated to the proposition that the people should relinquish all political activity and passively receive and believe the judgements of technocratic regulators. This system is based fundamentally on the Big Lie that it actually is a form of democracy and a form of society which encourages the political participation of the people. But in fact it conjures only sham versions of these and seeks aggressively to discourage and suppress any true politics.
 
This ideology and method is especially critical for the poisoner campaign, whose continued domination depends upon the people’s opposition remaining strait-jacketed within the bonds of regulator-based reformism. It’s essential that no significant number of people attain an abolitionist consciousness and commit to the abolitionist goal.
 
We see how the corporate state and technocracy, along with their allied economic ideology of neoliberalism, exist as species within the same genus as classical fascism. This is the genus of pseudo-democratic forms bled of all real political content which then stand as cultural facades behind which exists only state tyranny. Today’s corporate state is the most fully evolved form of this tyranny.
 
 
 
Help propagate the abolitionist idea.
 
 
 

May 30, 2017

For Educational Use, Portier/EFSA Example

>

People keep out. Corporate Exclusion Zone.

 
 
We continue to compile information about the fraudulence of the European glyphosate reviews. Chris Portier, a cancer expert who has served with the IARC and participated in its 2015 review confirming that glyphosate causes cancer, has analyzed the EFSA’s partial release of the information upon which it based its review, as well as a 2015 paper disseminated by the industry’s Glyphosate Task Force (GTF). He finds that the German Agency for Risk Assessment (BfR, the agency which carries out Germany’s role as the EU’s “rapporteur state” for glyphosate), the EFSA, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) all distorted their interpretations of the industry’s own glyphosate studies in order to suppress the studies’ evidence that glyphosate causes tumors in rodents. In fact, the EU agencies now follow the BfR in simply regurgitating the GTF’s talking points where it comes to distorting and suppressing the data.
 
Portier details several elements of fraudulent methodology.
 

* EFSA’s classification of the human evidence as “very limited” is not a valid characterization under the relevant EU law (the CLP guidelines) and fails to properly address the strength of the available evidence;
* Both EFSA and ECHA dismissed positive findings because they fell inside of the range of the historical controls (this is an improper use of historical control evidence);
* Both EFSA and ECHA compared findings across different animal strains and different study durations to conclude that studies were inconsistent (this is not scientifically justifiable); and
* Both EFSA and ECHA characterize the evidence for genotoxicity (DNA damage) as negative, yet a review of the evidence released by EFSA and the open scientific literature suggest there are many studies demonstrating genotoxicity.

 
These are typical of the way regulators distort and suppress the science. As is also typical, the regulatory agencies followed the lead of Monsanto’s GTF in deploying these fraudulent methods. The corporation typically is the mentor and teacher of the regulator
 
 
Therefore we have the latest information for the ongoing political struggle to ban glyphosate, as part of the greater imperative to abolish all synthetic pesticides. Here’s the takeaways.
 
1. All the evidence, including that compiled by the industry’s own tests, consistently finds that glyphosate causes cancer.
 
2. This comes through even in the distorted releases of industry and regulators.
 
3. The regulators regard corporate control of science as normal and normative.
 
4. This includes the new paradigm of “secret science”. But according to the canons of scientific method, science by definition is public. Therefore secret science is a contradiction in terms. If it’s not publicized, it’s not part of the scientific record, period.
 
5. The corporate and regulator lust for secrecy proves, among other things, that the real evidence is even worse than they’ve been forced to let out. The existence of secret science in itself is strict proof that the governments and corporations know or believe that to perform and publicize real science would bring results damning to their products, pesticides and GMOs. It proves that whatever evidence they have condemns these poisons.
 
6. Regulators are not public servants but corporate servants. These agencies are indelibly pro-corporate and always serve the corporation, never the people. This is their real job, while propaganda about public service is just a lie.
 
 
We depart from Portier in the prescription, of course. As an establishment scientist he’s committed to endlessly proposing reforms, i.e. begging the criminals to stop committing crimes. We abolitionists, by contrast, take his findings as further proof that these regulatory institutions are indelibly criminal organizations which never can be redeemed, nor their mandate to “manage” poisonism be reformed. On the contrary, the poisons these agencies “regulate” must be abolished. We’ve had enough of these poisons’ agronomic failure and destruction, enough of their health and environmental devastation, and enough of the political sham.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

May 25, 2017

Abolition vs. Regulation

>

 
 
We have the latest detail in the ongoing exposure of the indelible collaboration of the EPA and Monsanto. The EPA provided talking points to the EFSA to help it dismiss as irrelevant a study showing that glyphosate causes cancer in mice. The EFSA could then rule the evidence out of its glyphosate review. An EFSA officer admitted this in a letter to glyphosate critic Peter Clausing, who has been denouncing the EFSA’s sham “regulation” of glyphosate. Thus we see how the EPA and EFSA work together to defend what they see as Our Thing, the poisons propagated by their corporate clients.
 
Just another stone to add to the Everest of proof that the regulators are inherently pro-poison. This particular act, like almost all such acts, was not “corruption”. It was standard, everyday, banal procedure, in accord with the institutional ideology and mandate. The only corruption we can meaningfully speak of is the fact that, relative to all canons of human morality and reason, pro-corporate regulation is existentially corrupt. But as for de jure “corruption”, that’s nothing more than a drop in the ocean.
 
 
As for those who retain faith in the idea of such regulation, it’s bizarre how someone can, day after day, read and comment on pieces, each of whose content boils down to “the EPA is fundamentally pro-pesticide and pro-GMO” or “the FDA is pro-GMO”, and yet simultaneously hold the faith that such regulatory agencies are basically good, sound institutions, there to serve the people, institutions which humanity needs to have. Underlying this is the prior, unspoken assumption that the thing being regulated, such as pesticides and GMOs, also is something basically good, just in need of regulation. Faith in the regulator is a manifestation of wanting to co-exist with Monsanto and its poisons.
 
Abolitionism denies this implicit, primary proposition, renders it explicit, and from there denies the secondary, surface, “political” proposition. Therefore we reject today’s political configuration and call for a new one.
 
We recognize that it’s impossible to “regulate” poisonism, impossible to “manage” it, there can be no “tolerance level” of it, and therefore it’s intrinsically impossible for an institution dedicated to such regulation, management, setting of tolerances, to play any constructive role.
 
We cannot “regulate” agricultural poisons, we need to abolish them completely.
 
 
 
 
Older Posts »